VIP REWARDS PROGRAM & SHOP ONLINE
Houston, TX
Authored by: Dr. Sam Sukkar, MD on January 6th, 2026
Breast Augmentation Success Story Series by Dr. Sam Sukkar, MD | Case Study #7778
This is part of our series featuring real patient transformations at The Clinic for Plastic Surgery. Each case study provides an in-depth look at actual procedures, recovery experiences, and results from Houston patients who’ve undergone breast augmentation with Dr. Sam M. Sukkar.
She stood in front of the mirror one Saturday morning, trying on clothes for an upcoming event. Nothing fits quite right. The problem wasn’t her waistline or her legs, it was her chest.
At 41, after years of nursing and natural aging, she felt like her body had lost something she couldn’t get back on her own. The tops that once flattered her now hung awkwardly. She wasn’t asking for attention. She just wanted to feel like herself again.
*The patient’s name was changed to protect their privacy. All medical details and photographic before and after results are from actual Patient Case #7778. Individual results may vary based on body type, surgical approach, and adherence to post-operative instructions.
Stephanie* came to my Houston office with concerns many women in their forties share. Standing 5’2″ and weighing 126 pounds, she had a petite frame that made volume loss particularly noticeable. Years of breastfeeding had left her breasts smaller and less full than before motherhood. She wasn’t looking for a dramatic transformation, just restoration of what once was, with a proportional enhancement that would make her feel confident in her own skin again.
During our consultation, she expressed specific goals: natural-looking fullness that complemented her petite stature, improved upper pole volume, and results that would look appropriate both in everyday clothing and more fitted outfits. She wanted to avoid an overly augmented appearance while achieving noticeable improvement. For women considering breast augmentation surgery in Houston, finding this balance between enhancement and natural aesthetics is often the primary objective.
Three main concerns emerged during our discussions:
Implant selection and sizing: Stephanie* worried about choosing the right size. Would 350cc be too much for her frame? Too little? She wanted guidance on achieving proportional results that wouldn’t require revision down the line.
Recovery impact on daily life: As an active professional and mother, she needed realistic expectations about downtime. When could she return to work? When could she resume exercise? How would the subpectoral placement affect her recovery timeline?
Natural appearance: Perhaps her biggest concern was avoiding the “obviously augmented” look. She’d seen results that didn’t appeal to her, implants that looked too round, too high, or simply didn’t match the patient’s body type. She wanted results that would make her feel confident, not self-conscious.
After comprehensive evaluation of Stephanie’s* anatomy, tissue characteristics, and aesthetic goals, I developed a customized surgical plan:
1. Bilateral Augmentation Mammoplasty (Breast Augmentation Surgery)
2. High-Profile Implant Selection
3. Submuscular Placement
The types of breast augmentation available require careful matching to patient anatomy. For Stephanie*, the combination of subpectoral placement with high-profile implants offered the ideal balance of natural appearance and noticeable enhancement.
Stephanie’s* case required several strategic considerations based on her specific characteristics. At 5’2″ with a narrow chest wall, standard moderate-profile implants would have required larger volumes to achieve her desired projection, volumes that could have looked disproportionate on her frame. High-profile implants solve this equation by providing forward projection from a narrower base diameter.
The subpectoral placement decision reflected multiple factors. First, it provides additional soft tissue coverage, particularly important for petite patients with limited natural breast tissue. This coverage reduces the risk of visible rippling and palpable implant edges. Second, the muscle coverage creates a more gradual, natural-looking upper pole contour rather than the abrupt “shelf” appearance sometimes seen with subglandular placement.
The inframammary fold incision offers distinct advantages I’ve observed over 25 years of practice. It allows direct visualization of the pocket creation, precise control over implant positioning, and results in a scar hidden in the natural breast crease. For patients concerned about breast augmentation recovery, understanding that incision location affects both aesthetic outcomes and healing patterns helps set realistic expectations.
Age considerations also influenced our approach. At 41, Stephanie* had mature breast tissue with some degree of natural elasticity loss. The 350cc volume provided enough fill to smooth existing skin while respecting the limits of her tissue envelope. Overfilling could have created tension-related complications or an unnatural appearance. Conservative, proportional augmentation tends to age better than aggressive sizing, particularly in patients over 40.
The first 72 hours after submuscular breast augmentation are the most intense. Stephanie* experienced typical immediate recovery: significant tightness across her chest, muscle soreness from the subpectoral pocket creation, and swelling that made her results appear higher and firmer than the final outcome would be.
She followed discharge instructions precisely: sleeping elevated at 30-45 degrees, taking prescribed pain medication on schedule, and wearing her surgical support bra continuously. The muscle-related discomfort was more pronounced than the incision site pain, a common pattern with submuscular placement. Movement limitations were real but manageable. She could handle personal care independently but needed help with overhead reaching and heavy lifting.
Weeks 1-2: Gradual Improvement
By day five, Stephanie* noticed marked improvement. The acute muscle soreness began transitioning to tightness. She was able to reduce pain medication and transition to over-the-counter options. Swelling remained significant, and her implants sat notably high on her chest, the expected “riding high” appearance that would resolve as tissues relaxed.
Critical recovery rules she followed:
Understanding breast augmentation and lift recovery week by week helps patients anticipate these phases. While Stephanie* had augmentation only (no lift), the recovery principles remain similar regarding tissue healing and activity restrictions.
The third week marked a turning point. Muscle tightness had largely resolved, and Stephanie* returned to work with modified duties. She could drive comfortably and resume most daily activities. Her implants had begun their descent, “dropping and fluffing” in common terminology, settling into a more natural position within the breast pocket.
Swelling continued decreasing, allowing her to see her emerging shape more clearly. She remained in her surgical bra but could now wear looser clothing comfortably. Light cardio (walking, easy cycling) was permitted, but upper body resistance training remained off-limits until six-week clearance.
Final Results: Three-Month Post-Operative Assessment
By three months post-surgery, Stephanie* had reached the outcome we’d planned during consultation. Her 350cc Mentor high-profile silicone implants had settled into position, creating natural-looking fullness that complemented her petite 5’2″ frame beautifully. The upper poles showed soft, gradual projection without the artificial “bolt-on” appearance she’d worried about. The inframammary scars had faded to thin, barely perceptible lines hidden in her natural breast creases.
She reported complete comfort in all clothing styles, from fitted workout wear to formal attire. The proportional enhancement allowed her to wear standard bra sizes without specialty shopping. Most importantly, she expressed feeling like herself again, only better.
The measurable outcomes from Stephanie’s* bilateral augmentation mammoplasty demonstrate the effectiveness of matched surgical planning and patient anatomy:
Beyond these technical specifications, Stephanie* experienced life-changing impact. She reported renewed confidence in clothing choices, comfort in intimate situations, and elimination of the self-consciousness that had developed over years of post-pregnancy volume loss. She no longer avoided fitted clothing or felt the need to compensate with strategic layering.
The psychological transformation accompanied the physical one. Breast augmentation for the right candidate addresses not vanity but restoration, returning patients to how they feel they should look. For detailed visual documentation of similar transformations, reviewing breast augmentation before and after in Houston cases provides realistic expectations.
Several factors contributed to Stephanie’s* outstanding three-month result:
Appropriate implant selection for body type: The high-profile 350cc implants provided ideal projection for her narrow, petite frame without excessive width. This matching of implant geometry to chest wall anatomy is critical, I’ve performed over 20,000 procedures, and proper sizing remains the most important variable in achieving natural-looking results.
Submuscular placement benefits: The subpectoral pocket provided soft tissue coverage that enhanced the natural appearance, particularly in her upper poles. This coverage reduced visibility of implant edges and created gradual contour transitions.
Meticulous surgical technique: Precise pocket creation, careful hemostasis to minimize bleeding and capsule formation, and attention to symmetry during implant positioning all contributed to her smooth recovery and excellent outcome.
Patient compliance with recovery protocols: Stephanie* followed every restriction and recommendation. This adherence to breast augmentation recovery guidelines significantly impacts final results. Patients who resume activity too quickly risk complications that compromise outcomes.
Realistic expectations and clear communication: From initial consultation through post-operative visits, Stephanie* understood what breast augmentation could and couldn’t achieve. This alignment of expectations with surgical capabilities is fundamental to patient satisfaction.
High-profile implants offer maximum forward projection from a narrower base width, making them ideal for patients with narrow chest walls or those seeking significant projection without excessive lateral breast width. For Stephanie’s* 5’2″ frame, moderate-profile implants would have required larger volumes (potentially 400cc+) to achieve comparable projection, which could have appeared disproportionate. The high-profile geometry delivered her desired fullness while maintaining natural proportions. This implant profile selection becomes increasingly important for women over 40, whose skin elasticity may not accommodate width as readily as younger patients.
Subpectoral (submuscular) placement involves creating a pocket beneath the pectoralis major muscle, which adds muscle-related discomfort to the initial recovery phase. Patients typically experience 3-5 days of significant chest tightness and movement limitations related to muscle trauma. However, this placement offers substantial long-term advantages: better soft tissue coverage (reducing rippling visibility), more natural upper pole contour, lower capsular contracture rates, and easier mammogram interpretation. For patients prioritizing natural appearance and long-term outcomes over slightly easier initial recovery, submuscular placement is often the superior choice. Understanding these trade-offs helps patients make informed decisions when exploring breast augmentation surgery near me in Houston.
The inframammary fold (IMF) approach places the incision in the natural crease beneath the breast, offering several advantages: direct visualization during pocket creation for precise implant positioning, accommodation of all implant types and sizes, and resulting scars hidden in a natural anatomical boundary. In my experience, IMF incisions heal to thin, barely visible lines in most patients. The location allows easy access for potential future revisions if needed. While periareolar and transaxillary approaches have specific applications, the IMF incision remains my preferred technique for most augmentation cases due to its combination of aesthetic outcomes and surgical versatility.
Stephanie* came to my Houston office uncertain whether breast augmentation was right for her at 41. She left three months later with natural-looking fullness, restored confidence, and renewed comfort in her own body.
Your story might be different. Maybe you’re concerned about choosing the right implant size, wondering about recovery impact on your career and family responsibilities, or trying to understand which surgical approach best suits your anatomy.
But the common thread is this: You deserve to feel confident and comfortable in your own body. The body you want is within reach with the right surgical approach and an experienced surgeon who understands the unique considerations of augmentation for women over 40. If post-pregnancy changes or natural aging are affecting your confidence and quality of life, transformation is possible.
Schedule Your Personalized Consultation here, or call us today at (281) 940-1535 and discover what’s possible for your unique body and goals in Houston!
Are you located in one of these Houston Metro Area cities?
Houston, The Woodlands, Sugar Land, Katy, Pearland, Pasadena, League City, Baytown, Conroe, Cypress, Spring, Kingwood, Humble, Missouri City, Friendswood, Bellaire, Clear Lake, Tomball, Galveston, Richmond, Rosenberg, Stafford, La Porte, Deer Park, Seabrook, Webster, Alvin, and Channelview.
Board-Certified Plastic Surgeon Dr. Sam Sukkar, MD, FACS, and The Clinic for Plastic Surgery Team are here to help you achieve refined, natural-looking results.
Offering expert cosmetic enhancements in:
Visit our modern 18,000+ sq.ft. luxurious plastic surgery center and med spa in Houston, Texas, where expertise meets artistry. Our highly skilled and compassionate team ensures a seamless experience, from consultation to recovery.
For patients outside of the Houston area or those with a busy schedule, Schedule a Virtual Consultation.
Schedule your personalized consultation today at DrSukkar.com or call (281) 940-1535.
Dr. Sam Sukkar, MD, FACS is a highly respected Board-Certified Plastic Surgeon in Houston, Texas, known for his expertise in advanced cosmetic and reconstructive procedures. As the founder of The Clinic for Plastic Surgery, Dr. Sukkar has set a new standard for excellence, performing over 20,000 procedures with a focus on delivering natural, refined results.
Dr. Sukkar earned his Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree from Louisiana State University School of Medicine in 1992 after graduating summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in Microbiology. He then completed an intensive General Surgery Residency at the University of Texas Hermann Hospital before being selected for a highly competitive Plastic Surgery Fellowship at Northwestern University in Chicago, one of the most prestigious training programs in the country.
With more than 20 years of experience, Dr. Sukkar is a Diplomate of the American Board of Plastic Surgery and a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons (FACS). He is also an active member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) and the Houston Society of Plastic Surgery (HSPS). His dedication to innovation and continuing education has solidified his reputation as a leading expert in aesthetic surgery, specializing in breast surgery, body contouring, facial procedures, and non-invasive treatments.
Dr. Sukkar’s expertise has been recognized by Houston Magazine, naming him one of Houston’s “Top Docs for Women,” and he has been featured among RealSelf’s America’s Top Doctors. Committed to his patients, he prioritizes personalized care, ensuring every individual feels informed, comfortable, and confident in their aesthetic journey.
Contact Dr. Sukkar today to schedule a consultation, visit DrSukkar.com to learn more, or call us directly at (281) 940-1535.
Cover Image Illustration by: Dr. Sam Sukkar, MD, The Clinic for Plastic Surgery.
From the first time you walk into The Clinic for Plastic Surgery, you’ll know that you are in a place that cares about results. Under the leadership of Dr. Sukkar, The Clinic for Plastic Surgery has become Houston’s plastic surgery center of choice. Experience the difference for yourself by scheduling a consultation today.
14018 Aesthetic Circle, Houston, TX 77062
14018 Aesthetic Circle, Houston TX 77062
(281) 940-1535
Mon: 8:30am - 5pmTue - Thu: 8am - 5pm Fri: 9am - 3pm
© 2026 The Clinic for Plastic Surgery All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy | Accessibility | Sitemap | Open Payments Database Notice | Blog
Plastic Surgeon Marketing
*THE CONTENT/IMAGES ON THIS WEBSITE ARE NOT A GUARANTEE OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS. INDIVIDUAL RESULTS MAY VARY. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS SITE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT REPLACE THE NEED FOR A FORMAL CONSULTATION WITH A PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGEON BEFORE UNDERGOING A SURGICAL PROCEDURE OR SKINCARE TREATMENT. THE LOGOS LISTED ABOVE REFLECT DR. SUKKAR'S CERTIFICATIONS ONLY.
